What makes me appreciate Sicko as more than a simple documentary on the American health care system is that its subject matter is in dire need of being discussed--it is both timely and topical. After taking INST 203 last semester and being exposed to all the benefits and deficits that come with our health care system, I've started thinking a lot more on the issue. And the fact of the matter is that we need to make it a national priority. Sicko, as a movie and not merely a springboard for cocktail party conversation, was quite effective. There were funny parts that kept the movie from being overly depressing and very emotional parts as well, which grounded the movie in reality. The first half of the movie I found myself fighting with facts I had learned, but the last thirty minutes or so hit you on an emotional level, where facts don't mitigate these real peoples' problems. Unlike Fahrenheit 9/11, it ended on a serious note and not a funny one--you leave the movie thinking that this is a matter that can be improved on, not something you can just laugh away and ignore. So while this movie is far from perfect, I am glad he made it and recommend it to anyone and everyone.The movie does have a surplus of problems too. The first is that it is made by Michael Moore. He carries with him a lot of baggage and hate because of his earlier movies, and unfortunately a lot of people are not going to see this movie simply because he made it. Going in, you already know it's going to be a biased, pointed attack and not an exposé showing both sides, facts, and solutions. Which irritated me a lot. It begged for sympathy by first showing the victims of the HMOs and their health coverage denials. It claimed that the US was one of the least healthiest nations in the world, even though it pays the most for health care. It showed the perfect universal health care of Britain and France and their longer-living, healthier patients. But it ignores so much that it's almost insulting to the viewer. I don't think Europe's health rating would be as high if they had to deal with AIDS from African countries and TB in east Asian countries in equal quantities as the typical English and French diseases. And that is what the US health system must deal with every day. Being the heterogeneous melting pot that we are, the number of diseases people need treated are huge compared to the relatively small number in the homogeneous European populations. He ignores the benefits to the US health care system (we are one of the top nations when it comes to preventative medicine), but goes out of his way to show that other nations also do similar things (he always mentions when another nation has preventative health care).
And the movie gets very repetitive; we see the "perfect" Canadian system, then the "perfect" British system, the "perfect" French system, and then even the ridiculously sugar-coated "perfect" Cuban system. We get the point. And I don't think any of us are naive enough to think that their systems are perfect, even though they do have good qualities that our system lacks. The movie even feels repetitive when they have the victims tell their stories; there are just so many that each additional one adds nothing to the table except increase the number. What also bugged me a little was the use of archival footage and sixties-style songs, although they were kind of funny. Despite this movie's problems, I think it is one that must be watched and talked about and brought to the forefront of the political realm, because a change is necessary in the American health care system.
IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0386032/